Cricket 1900

“ Together joined In Cricket’s manly toll.”— Byron. w o. 5 4 8 . v o l . x i x TH U R S D A Y , J U L Y 26, 1900. p r i c e s a . A CHAT ABOUT ME. RICHARD DAFT. It is almost a certainty that any old- time cricketer, if asked to_ describe Mr. Daft’s play, would in the course of his remarks say that]'“ he was the most graceful batsman'I ever saw.” There can be no two questions about [this, for public opinion is unanimous that in point of style the great Notts batsman left nothing whatever to be de­ sired. Whether a man saw him play once or a hundred times he always had the same impression —he had seen a batsman whose style was perfect. It was only a day or two ago that I asked a gentleman, who when he was a boy of eighteen saw Mr. Daft batting two or three times, what he remem­ bered of him. He replied, “ I haven’t the slightest idea how many runs he made, or how long he was at the wickets, or how he made his runs; but I do know that I have still a picture in my mind of the most graceful player I ever saw.” It would be difficult at this far off day to describe Mr. Daft’s style. He had a splendid eye, and could watch the fastest bowling right up to the wicket, often playing the ball so near the bails that the wicket­ keeper felt certain that he would retire “ hit wicket.” Like Shrewsbury, who in many other respects is like him, he could play the very best bowling on the very worst wickets, and play it in such an easy way as to make other men wonder how on earth it was done. Nine batsmen out of ten, whether ancient or modern, could only score on such a wicket by knocking off the most dangerous bowlers by deter­ mined hitting, but Mr. Daft would play back as calmly as if he were on the best wicket in the world, and would moreover manage to make a fair proportion of the runs. He could drive as hard as most people when he liked, and somewhat horrified the critics of his day by going out to the ball without worrying himself about the wicket-keeper. Mr. Daft began his first-class career as an amateur, but finding that he could not afford to play regularly and at the same time pay all his expenses, he decided (from a Photo by Phillips de Go., Nottingham.) to become a professional. He was such a remarkably promising batsman that he could doubtless have still continued to play as an amateur, not only without loss to his pocket, but with considerable gain, but he had an absolute horror of playing under false colours. Hence his decision to throw in his lot with the Players. It is perhaps unnecessary to add that though a wrong construction was placed on his action by a few people, he did not lose the respect of a single gentleman who took part in the’ game. On the contrary, gentlemen as well as professionals honoured him for his straightforwardness. In after years, when he did not play so frequently, and could therefore afford to pay his own expenses, he returned to his original status as an amateur, and was immediately made welcome by all other ama­ teurs who played, while the professionals to a man agreed that he had done well to act as he did. Ten years after he had retired from first- class cricket he played for Notts against Surrey at the Oval, the Notts committee being at their wits’ end to know where to look for men. The reception which he met with from the crowd was so enthusiastic that he -night have been excused if he had been quite unnerved by it, although p s a matter of fact he played with as much coolness as if he had been taking part in a local match. On this occasion his son, H. B. Daft, was playing in the same team, and it was printed out at the time that only in the case of William and John Lillywhite had a father and son played to­ gether in a first-class match in previous days. Since then Dr. Grace and Mr. W . G. Grace, jun., have played together. In many of the biographies which have recently appeared of Mr. Daft it is stated that he only made four hundreds in first-class matches during his career, viz. : 103 not outjfor Notfs v. M.C.C., at Lord’s, in 1869 ; 117 for Notts v. M.C.C., at Lord’s, in 1870; 161 for Notts v. Yorkshire, at Notting- Via.-n, in 1873; and 102 for Notts v. msex, at Nottingham, in 1874. This is, however, a mistake, for in addition to ibis he made 118 for North v. South and 102 for Players v. Gentlemen, in 1872, at Lord’s, and 111 for All England v. United